The TWO 'CO-ESSENTIAL FACTORS' necessary for a Truly Fulfilling Life are (1) BEING; (i.e. 'Self-Being,' 'Being-for Oneself; 'One's OWN 'Self-Self' Relationship), and (2) BELONGING; Relationship to OTHERS, and more specifically; ONE Particular Beloved Other Person, (e.g. 'Husband'; 'Wife'; - 'Lover and Beloved' Relationship).
The above factors are made effective in the context of Family, and elsewhere, through Genuine Human-Spiritual Communication; Including, so-called, 'Emotional Honesty' (i.e. Truthful communications (on every level) - as opposed to mis-communications; (communications that 'miss the mark' so to speak - ( anywhere from outright lies, deceptions, to more subtle 'tangential' remarks etc.).
'Missing the Mark' is actually a very good metaphorical starting point in our discussion of ALL forms of possible 'communication' within a 'two-person' 'Marriage' relationship, as well as in the context of 'Family' more generally - that is, when children 'enter the picture.' This almost inevitable occurrence can totally transform, as well as redefine, the whole 'nexus' of relations; firstly between the parents, (both internally, and externally) as well as those between parents and children, children and children!
In the context of 'Marriage Life', I think it fair to say that without a definite commitment to 'Marriage' - as a 'Spiritual Enterprise' - and this commitment, fundamentally on the level of an implicit, as well as, explicit 'marriage vow' - that is, a mutual commitment to TRUTH on every level of relationship; the probability for on-going mis-communications, (compounding, over time, mutual mis-understanding) is exponentially much higher.
As paradoxical as it may seem, it would appear that a prior experience of belonging; an experience in early childhood of total acceptance, in the first instance, in relationship to one's 'Mother' or 'Primary care giver' is the sine qua non of one's own sense of Autonomous BEING, later in Life. This TOTAL ACCEPTANCE; This EXPERIENCE of un-conditional LOVE; of Total Belonging, to ANOTHER Human Being like oneself provides the BASIS for what has been called Primary 'Ontological Security.' (See, Laing, R.D., The Divided Self, 1960; Self and Others, 1961).
This inter-dependent (dialectical) relationship between BEING, and BELONGING, is very much brought into play in what I like to call the crucible, provided by the 'two-partner arrangement' of 'Marriage as a Spiritual Enterprise.' (See initial post to this site).
Saturday, 6 August 2016
Sunday, 21 February 2016
SACRED SEX
SEX is SACRED to ME; as SACRED as THIS 'Knowledge Tree' - THIS TREE; That is ONE, and 'Stands Alone' in The GARDEN of PURE and INNOCENT LOVE!
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
On Sublimation
On Sublimation: What a daunting task - to do justice to this most important CONCEPT! Although much has been written on the subject, it is still much disputed, and I believe, little understood.
This applies equally to ALL psychological, as well as 'psyho-spiritual' theories; which attempt to define, as well as shed some light on the issues involved.
This applies equally to ALL psychological, as well as 'psyho-spiritual' theories; which attempt to define, as well as shed some light on the issues involved.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
We can "Come to God Dressed for Dancing, or Be Carried on a Stretcher to God's Ward."
These words are attributed to the Persian Poet Hafiz. I am drawing here on Daniel Ladinsky's rendition of a poem which appeared in one of Ladinsky's collections of Hafiz poems titled - I Heard God Laughing.
So, what is the meaning of this either/or choice alluded to in the Hafiz poem?
I believe it refers to the fact that when we really confront the meaning of our existence in this life; when it really comes down to it, we have two basic choices: (1) We can reach the end of our time on Earth, in this present life, 'flat on our back' so to speak; and 'out for the count' (in spiritual terms) in which case GOD will have to do a repair job on us in between life-times, or (2) We can prepare ourselves for ultimate spiritual union with God. "Dressed for Dancing' is an excellent metaphor for the psycho-spiritual condition in which, ideally, we should "Come to God." In this scenario, we don't even have to wait for physical 'death' - what a waste of time and life that would be anyway! On the contrary, we can begin right now the process and the practice of spiritually preparing ourselves for the inevitable union that is to come. This is indeed a joyous prospect, far better than gloomy anticipation of physical and mental demise.
To clarify this idea of God 'doing work on us' between life-times, it may be useful first to state that what I am calling the 'total life cycle', includes not only the interval between physical birth and physical death, but also the interval between physical 'death' - and physical re-birth, or 're-incarnation.' A further point needs to be made here and is as follows: The interval between life-times is as important to ones spiritual progress as the interval between ones actual physical birth, and ones actual physical death! In this respect, it influences considerably the pattern of ones present life.
The question as to whether this 'new lifetime' begins at the moment of conception, or at actual (physical) birth, (or somewhere between the two) although not insignificant - theoretically or practically, is, however, not the most important issue when it comes to actually living ones present life 'in the world' - as ones present life is in fact the sum total of all ones previous lives - right up to the present 'here and now' moment of ones present lifetime.
To return to our main theme, which is, I believe the role that 'married life' can play in spiritual self-development, it may be useful to go a little deeper into the meaning of the phrase that I have extracted from Hafiz 's poem: i.e. the expression "Dressed for Dancing." In the precise context in which I am using this particular phrase; "Dressed for Dancing" and the metaphor it embodies, getting "dressed for dancing" actually means in spiritual terms, getting dressed down for dancing. That is, it means the process of 'slimming down' ones ego, with the ultimate aim of doing away with ones limited 'mind-ego' altogether, the result of which would be the realisation of ones True Self - ones True Identity - the "Real I Am." This achievement is identical to realising the ultimate goal of all life on this Planet; and that is to "Realise God' or the 'God State of Infinite Being' - Full Consciously.
Now, according to Avatar Meher Baba, there are two principal ways in which this can be achieved (in the context of our present discussion). The first is through total celibacy. The other is through 'married life.'
To quote briefly from Page. 102, of the 7th., edn. of the Discourses, under the heading: Necessity of Clear Choice - "Aspirants must choose one of two courses that are open to them. They must take to a life of celibacy or to a married life and must avoid at all costs a cheap compromise between the two. Promiscuity in sexual gratification is bound to land aspirants in the most pitiful and dangerous chaos of ungovernable lust. As such diffused and undirected lust veils the higher values, it perpetuates entanglement and creates in the spiritual path insuperable difficulties to the internal and spontaneous renunciation of craving. Sex in marriage is entirely different from sex outside marriage. In marriage the sanskaras (experiential impressions) of lust are much lighter and are capable of being removed more easily. When a sexual relationship is accompanied by a sense of responsibility, love, and spiritual idealism, conditions for the sublimination of sex are much more favourable than when it is cheap and promiscuous."
Nowhere in the particular discourse from which the above quote is excerpted; 'The Problem of Sex' or the following one; 'The Sanctification of Married Life' (in Discourses) is it explicitely stated that one partner in the 'marriage' relationship must be male and the other female. However, it is stated in the actual text that 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise' is an 'enterprise' limited to two persons and two persons only.
"When the two partners launch together upon the spiritual adventure of exploring the higher possibilities of the spirit, they cannot at the outset limit their experiment by any nice calculations concerning the nature and amount of individual gain." (ibid, p.104).
And agian, "Married life almost always makes many demands upon both partners for mutual adjustment and understanding, and creates many problems that were not originally expected." (ibid, p.104).
Do I accept this assumption of a two-partner arrangement uncritically? On the contrary! For me it is not a matter of 'religious' belief, that is, the uncritical acceptance of ideas which are pre-scribed for me, regarding how I choose to live my life. There is, I believe, good reason for the conscious choice of a 'two-partner arrangement.' There is an implicit need for containment of sexual energy within the ongoing space-time context provided by a two-partner arrangement. In this way, a diverse range of life experience can be had whilst drawing on the sexual tension existing between the partners and utilising it for the spiritual task of progressive sublimation, that is, the progressive transformation of lust into pure love. Therefore, the aspect of containment (not confinement) functions as a kind of alchemical crucible where this transformation can be effected.
This may be a good place to pause and take stock of the overall discussion so far: I wish to make it absolutely clear that although I am making specific use of the metaphor of "getting dressed for dancing" as referring to "Marriage as a Spiritual Enterprise" (and the sexual union implcit in 'marriage'), strictly speaking, one can arrive at the very same condition referred to here as being "dressed for dancing" just as effectively through 'married life' - or a life of strict 'celibacy.' The end result is the same. It is for the individual to decide for herself or himself which path is more suited to ones own personal makeup.
I also feel the need at this point to clarify the essential meaning and purpose; the essential component of this whole 'enterprise' of "getting dressed for dancing." The very concept of "dancing" has immense meaning in this regard. We have heard expressions, and even book titles such as "Dancing with Wolves," "Dancing with Dolphins," "Elephants?" Well perhaps. But what could possibly be the meaning of "Dancing with GOD?"
I believe that ultimately it can have only one precise meaning, and that is to 'get in time with', to 'pick up the rhythm and tempo of God's Perfect Timing. 'Perfect timing' being itself a natural attribute or expression of God's Perfect Being!
I have approached the issue of sublimation from the standpoint of the end-goal of all life on this Planet; with particular reference to the 'inter-subjective' human level, of this multi-layered life-world or 'bio-sphere' in my Blog entitled - The Alchemy of the Spirit, however, it will be necessary to go into the actual process in more detail in the following paragraphs, as it is perhaps the most important aspect of the entire project of transforming 'married life' into a joint 'spiritual enterprise.'
To return to our main narrative, in dealing with the issue of 'birth control' (Discourses, 7th.edn. p.106, The Sanctification of Married Life), it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that it is implicit in the text - that one partner must be 'male' and the other 'female.'
"In view of the claims that children have on married lives, birth control deserves careful attention and critical examination.....The right opinion in this respect, as in all respects, must above everything be based upon spiritual considerations." (ibid., p.106.).
Personally speaking, I have no issue with the idea of same sex 'marriages' - whether sanctioned by the State or the Church. I am also absolutely certain about my own 'sexual orientation' - and it is decidedly 'heterosexual.' However, I only arrived at this certainty by first 'experimenting' with both options. It just seems to work for me in the above mentioned ways - re. creating the best possibilities for the generation and utilisation of sexual energy for spiritual purposes.
I am definitely not saying, however, that it may not be possible for other persons with different 'sexual orientation' to achieve the same spiritual aims, given a two-partner arrangement. It seems to me that the most important single factor in this whole equation is that of fidelity to ones 'marriage' partner. Of course this fidelity must be based upon a mutual understanding, and genuine commitment to, the whole project of 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise.'
In regard to the actual dynamics involved in this shared 'spiritual enterprise' called 'marriage', it might prove worthwhile to delve a little deeper into what is implied by the idea of 'birth control' within a two-partner arrangement.
To quote from the Discourses again, (7th. edn, page. 107, 'The Sanctification of Married Life') - "The purely physical means generally advocated by the supporters of birth control are most objectionable from the spiritual point of view." "The easy use of physical means obscures the spiritual side of the question and is far from contributory to the awakening of individuals to their real dignity and freedom as spiritual beings." "For spiritual aspirants in particular, but also for all human beings (because they are all potentially spiritual aspirants), it is extremely inadvisable to rely upon physical means for the regulation of childbearing. For such regulation the indviduals must rely upon nothing but mental control." (italics added).
Now, what are these 'physical means?' And, what is 'mental control?'
Although it is nowhere explicitly stated in these two Discourses, ('The Problem of Sex'; and 'The Sanctification of Married Life', Discourses, pp. 99-109, 7th. edn.), it is not difficult to come up with some possible answers. For example, 'physical means' of birth control could now include such things as - the 'pill', both 'male' and 'female', (i.e. chemical means); condoms; 'withdrawl' (a form of sexual 'Russian Roulette'); and I suppose the 'final non-solution' of abortion after conception, etc.
The issue of Abortion needs its own separate treatment, and I shall attempt to do it justice in the course of this on-going discussion.
When it comes to defining 'mental control' it gets a little more challenging to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of what is actually intended. If we stick to the actual text of the Discourses (e.g. pp.107) a number of relevant pieces of information stand out: "Mental control secures the humanitarian purposes that inspire birth control but keeps clear of the spiritual disasters entailed by the use of physical means. Mental control is not only useful for regulating the number of children but is also indispensible for restoring to humanity its divine dignity and spiritual well-being. Only through the wise exercise of mental control is it possible for humanity to rise from passion to peace, from bondage to freedom, and from animality to purity. In the minds of thoughtful persons the much ignored spiritual side of this question must assume the importance it deserves." (italics added).
And again, "For those who are not prepared to undertake the responsibility of children, there is only one course open to them. They must remain celibate and practice strict mental control." (ibid., p.108). This is pretty unambiguous! What it implies is that so-called mental control involves total abstinence from all sexual activity! A 'tall order' indeed.
As Meher Baba says elsewhere, "From the purely spiritual point of view, strict celibacy is best; but since it is so difficult, few can practice it. For those who cannot practice it, the next best course is to marry rather than fall prey to promiscuity." (ibid, p.108).
In terms of a male-female 'marriage union', it would seem that it is either a question of 'sex, and the welcoming of children' and/or; perhaps, after a few children, deciding mutually to abstain from all sexual activity.
One would certainly need to be totally committed to ones partner; as well as to the shared committment to the higher aspiration of 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise' in order to achieve this level of self-discipline.
There is an implicit assumption here that 'married life' (in the majority of cases) transforms quite naturally and 'seemlessly' into family-life; and that, involvement in the total experience of family life - especially ones involvement with ones children - compensates for, or at least facilitates, the giving up of explicitely sexual relations.
This reminds me of an amusing portrayal of a conversation between Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Flies during one of their meetings or 'congresses' as Freud called them. "What do I do about not having more babies Doctor?" "Drink a glass of water!" "When Doctor, before or after?"
In the dramatised version of the conversation, they both chime in together - "Instead!" (David Suchet as Freud., B.B.C. 1996).
I agree, there has to be an 'instead', however, I don't think a 'glass of water' would suffice! The only effective alternative is 'sublimation' of sexual energy. I shall explore this most important of topics in my next post.
MeherStar.
So, what is the meaning of this either/or choice alluded to in the Hafiz poem?
I believe it refers to the fact that when we really confront the meaning of our existence in this life; when it really comes down to it, we have two basic choices: (1) We can reach the end of our time on Earth, in this present life, 'flat on our back' so to speak; and 'out for the count' (in spiritual terms) in which case GOD will have to do a repair job on us in between life-times, or (2) We can prepare ourselves for ultimate spiritual union with God. "Dressed for Dancing' is an excellent metaphor for the psycho-spiritual condition in which, ideally, we should "Come to God." In this scenario, we don't even have to wait for physical 'death' - what a waste of time and life that would be anyway! On the contrary, we can begin right now the process and the practice of spiritually preparing ourselves for the inevitable union that is to come. This is indeed a joyous prospect, far better than gloomy anticipation of physical and mental demise.
To clarify this idea of God 'doing work on us' between life-times, it may be useful first to state that what I am calling the 'total life cycle', includes not only the interval between physical birth and physical death, but also the interval between physical 'death' - and physical re-birth, or 're-incarnation.' A further point needs to be made here and is as follows: The interval between life-times is as important to ones spiritual progress as the interval between ones actual physical birth, and ones actual physical death! In this respect, it influences considerably the pattern of ones present life.
The question as to whether this 'new lifetime' begins at the moment of conception, or at actual (physical) birth, (or somewhere between the two) although not insignificant - theoretically or practically, is, however, not the most important issue when it comes to actually living ones present life 'in the world' - as ones present life is in fact the sum total of all ones previous lives - right up to the present 'here and now' moment of ones present lifetime.
To return to our main theme, which is, I believe the role that 'married life' can play in spiritual self-development, it may be useful to go a little deeper into the meaning of the phrase that I have extracted from Hafiz 's poem: i.e. the expression "Dressed for Dancing." In the precise context in which I am using this particular phrase; "Dressed for Dancing" and the metaphor it embodies, getting "dressed for dancing" actually means in spiritual terms, getting dressed down for dancing. That is, it means the process of 'slimming down' ones ego, with the ultimate aim of doing away with ones limited 'mind-ego' altogether, the result of which would be the realisation of ones True Self - ones True Identity - the "Real I Am." This achievement is identical to realising the ultimate goal of all life on this Planet; and that is to "Realise God' or the 'God State of Infinite Being' - Full Consciously.
Now, according to Avatar Meher Baba, there are two principal ways in which this can be achieved (in the context of our present discussion). The first is through total celibacy. The other is through 'married life.'
To quote briefly from Page. 102, of the 7th., edn. of the Discourses, under the heading: Necessity of Clear Choice - "Aspirants must choose one of two courses that are open to them. They must take to a life of celibacy or to a married life and must avoid at all costs a cheap compromise between the two. Promiscuity in sexual gratification is bound to land aspirants in the most pitiful and dangerous chaos of ungovernable lust. As such diffused and undirected lust veils the higher values, it perpetuates entanglement and creates in the spiritual path insuperable difficulties to the internal and spontaneous renunciation of craving. Sex in marriage is entirely different from sex outside marriage. In marriage the sanskaras (experiential impressions) of lust are much lighter and are capable of being removed more easily. When a sexual relationship is accompanied by a sense of responsibility, love, and spiritual idealism, conditions for the sublimination of sex are much more favourable than when it is cheap and promiscuous."
Nowhere in the particular discourse from which the above quote is excerpted; 'The Problem of Sex' or the following one; 'The Sanctification of Married Life' (in Discourses) is it explicitely stated that one partner in the 'marriage' relationship must be male and the other female. However, it is stated in the actual text that 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise' is an 'enterprise' limited to two persons and two persons only.
"When the two partners launch together upon the spiritual adventure of exploring the higher possibilities of the spirit, they cannot at the outset limit their experiment by any nice calculations concerning the nature and amount of individual gain." (ibid, p.104).
And agian, "Married life almost always makes many demands upon both partners for mutual adjustment and understanding, and creates many problems that were not originally expected." (ibid, p.104).
Do I accept this assumption of a two-partner arrangement uncritically? On the contrary! For me it is not a matter of 'religious' belief, that is, the uncritical acceptance of ideas which are pre-scribed for me, regarding how I choose to live my life. There is, I believe, good reason for the conscious choice of a 'two-partner arrangement.' There is an implicit need for containment of sexual energy within the ongoing space-time context provided by a two-partner arrangement. In this way, a diverse range of life experience can be had whilst drawing on the sexual tension existing between the partners and utilising it for the spiritual task of progressive sublimation, that is, the progressive transformation of lust into pure love. Therefore, the aspect of containment (not confinement) functions as a kind of alchemical crucible where this transformation can be effected.
This may be a good place to pause and take stock of the overall discussion so far: I wish to make it absolutely clear that although I am making specific use of the metaphor of "getting dressed for dancing" as referring to "Marriage as a Spiritual Enterprise" (and the sexual union implcit in 'marriage'), strictly speaking, one can arrive at the very same condition referred to here as being "dressed for dancing" just as effectively through 'married life' - or a life of strict 'celibacy.' The end result is the same. It is for the individual to decide for herself or himself which path is more suited to ones own personal makeup.
I also feel the need at this point to clarify the essential meaning and purpose; the essential component of this whole 'enterprise' of "getting dressed for dancing." The very concept of "dancing" has immense meaning in this regard. We have heard expressions, and even book titles such as "Dancing with Wolves," "Dancing with Dolphins," "Elephants?" Well perhaps. But what could possibly be the meaning of "Dancing with GOD?"
I believe that ultimately it can have only one precise meaning, and that is to 'get in time with', to 'pick up the rhythm and tempo of God's Perfect Timing. 'Perfect timing' being itself a natural attribute or expression of God's Perfect Being!
I have approached the issue of sublimation from the standpoint of the end-goal of all life on this Planet; with particular reference to the 'inter-subjective' human level, of this multi-layered life-world or 'bio-sphere' in my Blog entitled - The Alchemy of the Spirit, however, it will be necessary to go into the actual process in more detail in the following paragraphs, as it is perhaps the most important aspect of the entire project of transforming 'married life' into a joint 'spiritual enterprise.'
To return to our main narrative, in dealing with the issue of 'birth control' (Discourses, 7th.edn. p.106, The Sanctification of Married Life), it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that it is implicit in the text - that one partner must be 'male' and the other 'female.'
"In view of the claims that children have on married lives, birth control deserves careful attention and critical examination.....The right opinion in this respect, as in all respects, must above everything be based upon spiritual considerations." (ibid., p.106.).
Personally speaking, I have no issue with the idea of same sex 'marriages' - whether sanctioned by the State or the Church. I am also absolutely certain about my own 'sexual orientation' - and it is decidedly 'heterosexual.' However, I only arrived at this certainty by first 'experimenting' with both options. It just seems to work for me in the above mentioned ways - re. creating the best possibilities for the generation and utilisation of sexual energy for spiritual purposes.
I am definitely not saying, however, that it may not be possible for other persons with different 'sexual orientation' to achieve the same spiritual aims, given a two-partner arrangement. It seems to me that the most important single factor in this whole equation is that of fidelity to ones 'marriage' partner. Of course this fidelity must be based upon a mutual understanding, and genuine commitment to, the whole project of 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise.'
In regard to the actual dynamics involved in this shared 'spiritual enterprise' called 'marriage', it might prove worthwhile to delve a little deeper into what is implied by the idea of 'birth control' within a two-partner arrangement.
To quote from the Discourses again, (7th. edn, page. 107, 'The Sanctification of Married Life') - "The purely physical means generally advocated by the supporters of birth control are most objectionable from the spiritual point of view." "The easy use of physical means obscures the spiritual side of the question and is far from contributory to the awakening of individuals to their real dignity and freedom as spiritual beings." "For spiritual aspirants in particular, but also for all human beings (because they are all potentially spiritual aspirants), it is extremely inadvisable to rely upon physical means for the regulation of childbearing. For such regulation the indviduals must rely upon nothing but mental control." (italics added).
Now, what are these 'physical means?' And, what is 'mental control?'
Although it is nowhere explicitly stated in these two Discourses, ('The Problem of Sex'; and 'The Sanctification of Married Life', Discourses, pp. 99-109, 7th. edn.), it is not difficult to come up with some possible answers. For example, 'physical means' of birth control could now include such things as - the 'pill', both 'male' and 'female', (i.e. chemical means); condoms; 'withdrawl' (a form of sexual 'Russian Roulette'); and I suppose the 'final non-solution' of abortion after conception, etc.
The issue of Abortion needs its own separate treatment, and I shall attempt to do it justice in the course of this on-going discussion.
When it comes to defining 'mental control' it gets a little more challenging to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of what is actually intended. If we stick to the actual text of the Discourses (e.g. pp.107) a number of relevant pieces of information stand out: "Mental control secures the humanitarian purposes that inspire birth control but keeps clear of the spiritual disasters entailed by the use of physical means. Mental control is not only useful for regulating the number of children but is also indispensible for restoring to humanity its divine dignity and spiritual well-being. Only through the wise exercise of mental control is it possible for humanity to rise from passion to peace, from bondage to freedom, and from animality to purity. In the minds of thoughtful persons the much ignored spiritual side of this question must assume the importance it deserves." (italics added).
And again, "For those who are not prepared to undertake the responsibility of children, there is only one course open to them. They must remain celibate and practice strict mental control." (ibid., p.108). This is pretty unambiguous! What it implies is that so-called mental control involves total abstinence from all sexual activity! A 'tall order' indeed.
As Meher Baba says elsewhere, "From the purely spiritual point of view, strict celibacy is best; but since it is so difficult, few can practice it. For those who cannot practice it, the next best course is to marry rather than fall prey to promiscuity." (ibid, p.108).
In terms of a male-female 'marriage union', it would seem that it is either a question of 'sex, and the welcoming of children' and/or; perhaps, after a few children, deciding mutually to abstain from all sexual activity.
One would certainly need to be totally committed to ones partner; as well as to the shared committment to the higher aspiration of 'marriage as a spiritual enterprise' in order to achieve this level of self-discipline.
There is an implicit assumption here that 'married life' (in the majority of cases) transforms quite naturally and 'seemlessly' into family-life; and that, involvement in the total experience of family life - especially ones involvement with ones children - compensates for, or at least facilitates, the giving up of explicitely sexual relations.
This reminds me of an amusing portrayal of a conversation between Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Flies during one of their meetings or 'congresses' as Freud called them. "What do I do about not having more babies Doctor?" "Drink a glass of water!" "When Doctor, before or after?"
In the dramatised version of the conversation, they both chime in together - "Instead!" (David Suchet as Freud., B.B.C. 1996).
I agree, there has to be an 'instead', however, I don't think a 'glass of water' would suffice! The only effective alternative is 'sublimation' of sexual energy. I shall explore this most important of topics in my next post.
MeherStar.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)